&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas NV 89193-3478
EPA 600/4-90/012
April 1990
Pre-lssue Copy
Research and Development
Proximity of Sanitary
Landfills to Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats
An Evaluation and
Comparison of 1,153
Sanitary Landfills
in 11 states
-------
EPA 600/4-90/012
April 1990
PROXIMITY OF SANITARY LANDFILLS TO WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER
HABITATS
An Evaluation and Comparison of 1,153 Sanitary Landfills
in 11 States
by
Victor W. Lambou
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
J. Michael Kuperberg, John E. Moerlins, Roy C. Herndon
Center for Biomedical and Toxicological Research and
Hazardous Waste Management
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4016
and
Robin L. Gebhard
National Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89193-3478
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly
or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Grant No. CR-815138 to the Florida State University. It has
been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review
and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Sanitary landfills can cause considerable harm to
sensitive ecosystems if they are not properly located,
designed, and managed. The purpose of this report is to
evaluate and compare the proximity of 1,153 sanitary
landfills in 11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington) to wetlands and
deepwater habitats (i.e., rivers, lakes, streams, bays,
etc.). The facilities were identified on U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory maps. The
nearness or proximity of the sanitary landfills to wetlands
and deepwater habitats was determined by drawing three
concentric regions around the point representing the
location of each landfill. The radii of the concentric
regions were: 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, and 1 mile. Almost all of
the sanitary landfills are located in or are close to either
wetlands or deepwater habitats. Almost all are close to
wetlands while approximately half are close to deepwater
habitats. The hydrology of wet environments and possible
movement of contaminants from waste-disposal sites located
in these environments are discussed. Sanitary landfills
have the potential to adversely affect sensitive ecosystems,
such as wetlands and deepwater habitats, either through
habitat alterations or through the migration of
contaminants. Because of this, facilities located in or
close to wetlands and/or deepwater habitats need to be
properly designed and monitored.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Figures v
Tables xi
Introduction 1
Conclusions 1
Recommendation 2
Materials and Methods 2
Results 6
All States 6
Wetlands 6
Deepwater Habitats 7
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats 7
Differences Among States and Regions 8
All Systems 8
Wetlands 8
Deepwater Habitats 9
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats 9
Palustrine System 10
Riverine System 11
Wetlands * 11
Deepwater Habitats 11
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats 12
Lacustrine System 12
Wetlands. 12
Deepwater Habitats 13
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats 13
Estuarine System 13
Wetlands 13
Deepwater Habitats 14
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats 14
Marine System ~. 15
Discussion 15
Literature Cited 22
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Hypothetical sanitary landfill showing the
concentric regions used to determine the
nearness or proximity to wetlands and
deepwater habitats and the.boundary of
an 100-acre sanitary landfill 26
2 Four regions of Texas delineated for this report 27
3 Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in
11 states to wetlands 28
4 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to closest wetland 28
5 Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to deepwater habitats 29
6 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to closest deepwater habitat 29
7 Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to either wetlands or deepwater habitats 30
8 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to either the closest wetland or deepwater habitat.. 30
9 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
wetlands by state or region 31
10 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
wetlands by state or region 31
11 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
wetlands by state or region • • 32
12 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to the closest wetland by state or region 32
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
13 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region 33
14 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region 33
15 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region 34
16 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to the closest deepwater habitat
by state or region 34
17 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 35
18 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 35
19 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of either
wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region... 36
20 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to the closest wetland or deepwater habitat
by state or region 36
21 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Palustrine wetlands by state or region 37
22 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of Palustrine
wetlands by state or region 37
VI
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
23 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
Palustrine wetlands by state or region 38
24 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
to the closest Palustrine wetland
by state or region 38
25 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Riverine wetlands by state or region 39
26 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Riverine wetlands by state or region 39
27 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of Riverine
wetlands by state or region 40
28 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region...... 40
29 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region 41
30 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region 41
31 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater
habitats by state or region 7 42
32 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater
habitats by state or region 42
VII
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
33 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of either
Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 43
34 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Lacustrine wetlands by state or region 43
35 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Lacustrine wetlands by state or region 44
36 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of Lacustrine
wetlands by state or region 44
37 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Lacustrine deepwater habitats by state or region.... 45
38 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Lacustrine deepwater habitats by state or region.... 45
39 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
Lacustrine deepwater habitats by state or region.... 46
40 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater
habitats by state or region 46
41 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater
habitats by state or region 47
42 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater
habitats by state or region • • 47
Vlll
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
43 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region 48
44 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region 48
45 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region 49
46 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region 49
47 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region 50
48 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region 50
49 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of either
Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 51
50 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of either
Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 51
51 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of either
Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 52
52 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of Marine
wetlands by state or region 52
IX
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
53 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of Marine
wetlands by state or region 53
54 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or .within 1 mile of Marine
wetlands by state or region 53
55 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of Marine
deepwater habitats by state or region 54
56 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of Marine
deepwater habitats by state or region 54
57 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of Marine
deepwater habitats by state or region 55
58 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/4 mile of either
Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region. 55
59 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1/2 mile of either
Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 56
60 Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states
that are located in or within 1 mile of either
Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats
by state or region 56
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Definition of wetlands used by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service from Cowardin et al. (1979) 57
2 Definition of deepwater habitats used by the
U.S. Fish and wildlife Service from
Cowardin et al. (1979) 59
3 Definition of the five major systems (Marine,
Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine)
used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
Cowardin et al. (1979) 60
4 Number of sanitary landfills by state, number with
NWI maps available, and number classified as to
their proximity to wetlands and deepwater habitats.. 65
5 Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11
states to the closest wetland or deepwater
habitat by state 66
xi
-------
INTRODUCTION
Sanitary landfills, as typically defined, are waste-
management facilities regulated under Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These
facilities are commonly referred to as municipal waste
landfills and they are primarily used to receive household
refuse and nonhazardous commercial waste. However, sanitary
landfills also receive other types of Subtitle D waste, such
as sewage sludge and industrial wastes. Sanitary landfills
typically receive some hazardous waste in the form of
household hazardous waste, and hazardous waste from small-
quantity generators as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.10
(Definitions). Depending upon the definition of a sanitary
landfill used by the individual states, there are between
6,500 and 9,300 of these facilities permitted in the United
States (U.S. EPA, 1987).
Sanitary landfills can cause considerable harm to
sensitive ecosystems if they are not properly located,
designed, and managed. These facilities have the potential
to adversely affect sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands
and deepwater habitats, either through habitat alterations
or through the migration of contaminants. In order to
evaluate the seriousness of this problem, information is
needed on the nearness of sanitary landfills to wetlands and
surface water bodies. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate and compare the proximity of sanitary landfills in
11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington) to wetlands and
deepwater habitats (i.e., rivers, lakes, streams, bays,
etc.).
CONCLUSIONS
Almost all sanitary landfills in the study area are
located in or are close to either wetlands or deepwater
habitats. Almost all are close to wetlands while
approximately half are close to deepwater habitats.
Almost all facilities in the study area are close to
Palustrine wetlands.
-------
2. There are some differences among the states and regions
in the study area in the relative proximity of the
sanitary landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats.
However, in all states, the vast majority of the
facilities are located close to wetlands.
3. There is a propensity for sanitary landfills to be
located close to wetlands.
4. A major consideration for determining adverse impacts
associated with landfills is whether or not the
facility site is hydrologically interconnected, either
by surface or subsurface flows, with wetlands,
deepwater habitats, and/or habitats with water tables
close to the surface. If hydrologically interconnected,
contaminants can easily migrate off-site and affect
these environments.
5. There are special problems associated with the siting,
design, operation, and monitoring of waste-disposal
sites located either in or close to wetlands or
deepwater habitats.
6. Sanitary landfills have the potential to adversely
affect sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands and
deepwater habitats, either through habitat alterations
or through the migration of contaminants.
7. Sanitary landfills located in or close to wetlands
and/or deepwater habitats need to be properly designed
and monitored.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that special monitoring and design
requirements be developed for waste disposal sites located
either in or close to wetlands and/or deepwater habitats.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The source of data used to determine the locations of
the sanitary landfills was the computer data file developed
by Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. (DPRA)
for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office
of Solid Waste in its RCRA Subtitle D program (DPRA, 1986) .
The DPRA data file includes information on 7,683 sanitary
landfills, and 6,849 of these facilities have latitude and
longitude coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds
specified in the data file. Each set of coordinates defines
a point which represents the geographic location of a
-------
sanitary landfill (Figure 1) . In addition, the data file
contains the names of the landfills and data on the cities
and counties in which the landfills reside. Individual
states are responsible for permitting sanitary landfills
under Subtitle D of RCRA and, since DPRA obtained the
information for the data file from state sources, the site
location information varies in terms of accuracy and the
point chosen to represent the location of each facility.
Four types of errors or omissions were identified in
the DPRA data file. These errors and omissions include:
missing latitude and longitude, missing state code, wrong
state code, and erroneous latitude/longitude. The first two
items relate to data that were omitted in the facility
record. Facilities that did not have latitude and longitude
coordinates were not used in this study while facilities
that did not have a state code were assigned an appropriate
state code by comparing the latitude and longitude
coordinates for the facilities with maps of the various
states. The last two items relate to errors in the data
file. Facilities with the wrong state code were corrected
and included in the study. The last item relates to
erroneous latitude and/or longitude records. Where
discovered, the erroneous coordinate(s) were corrected, if
possible. Errors may still exist in the DPRA data file;
however, it is believed that the overall results and
conclusions contained in this report will not be
significantly affected, since the number of errors is
probably small.
Wetlands typically form part of a continuous transition
zone between uplands and open water. Therefore, the
delineation of the upper and lower boundaries in any wetland
definition is somewhat arbitrary. There are a number of
definitions of wetlands that have been developed for use in
classifying natural environments or for regulatory purposes.
While these definitions are not identical, they are very
similar. The selection of a specific definition for use in
this study was determined by the availability of national
wetlands and deepwater habitats geographic data.
The most extensive, consistent source of wetlands and
deepwater habitats geographic data is the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The
NWI has developed detailed, large-scale maps for a
significant portion of the United States. To date, wetland
maps have been developed for approximately 40 percent of the
contiguous 48 states, 10 percent of Alaska, and all of
Hawaii. Large-scale NWI maps typically are either 1:24,000
scale or 1:63,360 scale U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle
maps; however, most are 1:24,000 scale. Wetlands and
deepwater habitats are delineated on the NWI maps. The
-------
delineation of wetlands and deepwater habitats was developed
using remote sensing techniques and field investigations.
The NWI maps are developed in accordance with the National
Map Accuracy Standard (NMAS) (U.S. GS, 1979). The NWI
1:24,000 scale maps used in this study are accurate,
according to the NMAS, to within 40 feet of ground
measurements. These maps are particularly useful for
plotting the location of sanitary landfills and for
determining the proximity of these facilities to wetlands
and deepwater habitats.
The NWI maps use the definitions (contained in Tables l
and 2) and the classification system (contained in Table 3)
for wetlands and deepwater habitats developed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979). Wetlands
are defined as lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near
the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water.
Deepwater habitats are defined as permanently flooded lands
lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands. For more
expansive definitions and an explanation of the definitions,
as well as the boundary limits, see Tables 1 and 2; for
further details see Cowardin et al. (1979). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats is hierarchical in nature proceeding from
general to specific (Cowardin et al., 1979). There are 5
systems, 10 subsystems, and 55 classes. In this study only
the "system", i.e, the complex of wetlands and deepwater
habitats that share the influence of similar hydrologic,
geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors, was used
for classification purposes. The definitions, as well as
the boundary limits of the five systems, i.e., Marine,
Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine, are given
in Table 3; for further details see Cowardin et al. (1979).
The first four systems, i.e., Marine, Estuarine, Riverine,
and Lacustrine, include both wetlands and deepwater habitats
whereas the Palustrine System includes only wetlands.
In order to link the location of sanitary landfills in
the DPRA data file to the appropriate NWI maps, we used the
information on the T-70 computer tape obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey (National Cartographic Information Center,
1987). The NWI large-scale maps were developed using U.S.
Geological Survey's quadrangle maps as base maps. The T-70
computer tape contains 67 fields of information including
latitude and longitude that can be used for identifying the
1:24,000 scale maps, the map names, and the state codes
assigned to the maps. Sanitary landfill location data on
the DPRA computer file tape were matched by a computer
program against location data on the U.S. Geological Survey
T-70 computer tape in order to identify the specific maps
that contain sanitary landfills and/or that would be needed
-------
to evaluate the wetlands and deepwater habitats that are
within 1 mile of each sanitary landfill. Sanitary landfills
that were located on the edge or in the corner of a map
required more than one map (i.e., two to four maps) to
complete the interpretation. The map names obtained from the
computer matching were sorted by state and compared with
inventories of available NWI maps.
Each sanitary landfill included in this study was
located on NWI large-scale maps using standard cartographic
techniques. Nearness or proximity of sanitary landfills to
wetlands and deepwater habitats was determined by drawing
three concentric regions around the point representing the
location of each landfill. The radii of the concentric
regions were: 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, and 1 mile (Figure 1) .
The occurrence or nonoccurrence of the wetland and deepwater
habitat systems in each concentric region was then recorded.
Due to the size and significant variation in
environmental settings across Texas, as well as the
availability of NWI maps, the state was divided into four
regions: Region 1 - Coastal, Region 2 - Northeastern, Region
3 - Panhandle, and Region 4 - Central. Figure 2 identifies
the four regions of Texas as delineated for this report.
There are 2,191 sanitary landfills in the DPRA data
base for the 11 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington) and we were able to
classify 1,153 (or 53 percent) of these facilities as to
their proximity to wetlands and deepwater habitats (Table
4). However, if the 463 sanitary landfills in Region 4
(Central) of Texas (where we were not able to classify any
of the facilities) and the 124 in the state of North
Carolina (where we were able to classify only 5 percent of
the facilities) are subtracted from the totals, 72 percent
of the facilities were classified as to their proximity to
wetlands and deepwater habitats. The percent of sanitary
landfills classified for the states or regions other than
Region 4 of Texas and North Carolina -ranges from 12 for
Georgia to 100 percent for Delaware and Regions 1, 2, and 3
of Texas.
In order to make comparisons relative to regional
differences in the proximity of sanitary landfills to
wetlands and deepwater habitats, the data were subdivided
into 13 groups, i.e., 10 states (Connecticut, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington) and the 3 regions of
Texas (Regions 1, 2, and 3).
-------
Summaries of the data for each state, data on the
individual sanitary landfills, as well as the detailed data
used in this evaluation, are given in Lambou et al. (1988a,
1988b, 1988c, 1988d, 1989a, 1989b), Gebhard et al. (1988a,
1988b), Herndon et al. (1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1988d, 1988e,
1988f), Moerlins et al. (1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1988d, 1989a,
1989b), and Lambou (1989). All of the above reports for the
various states surveyed, except Lambou (1989) for North
Carolina, are available as U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Project Reports.
Because of the small proportion of sanitary landfills in
North Carolina that could be classified as to their
proximity to wetlands and deepwater habitats (6 out of 124
or 5 percent), no formal reports were prepared for this
state. However, a listing of the sanitary landfills in the
state, as well as a tabulation of the facilities classified,
are available from the senior author upon request.
RESULTS
ALL STATES
Wetlands
Approximately 72 percent of the 1,153 sanitary
landfills surveyed in the 11 states are located in or within
1/4 mile of wetlands, while 91 and 98 percent are located in
or within 1/2 and 1 mile of wetlands, respectively (Figure
3) . Host of the facilities are located either in or are
close to Palustrine wetlands (i.e., approximately 69, 89,
and 97 percent are located in or within 1/4, 1/2, and 1
mile, respectively of a Palustrine wetland). Next comes
riverine wetlands with approximately 4, 9, and 15 percent of
the facilities located in or within 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile of
them, respectively. Estuarine and Lacustrine wetlands have
very few sanitary landfills located in or close to them.
Almost no facilities are located in or close to Marine
wetlands.
The distribution of the relative distances of the
sanitary landfills to the closest wetlands are given in
Figure 4. Only 2 percent of the landfills are located
further than a mile from any type of wetland. Approximately
18 percent of the sanitary landfills are 1/4 to 1/2 mile
from the closest wetland while approximately 7 percent are
within 1/2 to 1 mile.
-------
Deepvater Habitats
Approximately 17 percent of the sanitary landfills are
located in or within 1/4 mile of deepwater habitats, while
30 and 48 percent are located in or within 1/2 and 1 mile of
deepwater habitats, respectively (Figure 5) . Most of the
facilities are in the vicinity of Riverine or Lacustrine
deepwater habitats. Approximately 11, 21, and 33 percent
are located in or within 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile, respectively,
of Riverine deepwater habitats while approximately 5, 10,
and 20 percent are located' in or within 1/4, 1/2, and l
mile, respectively, of Lacustrine deepwater habitats. Very
few facilities are located in or close to Estuarine
deepwater habitats and almost none are located close to
Marine deepwater habitats. Approximately 52 percent of the
landfills are located further than a mile from any type of
deepwater habitat (Figure 6).
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats
Since most of the sanitary landfills are much closer to
wetlands (Figure 3) than deepwater habitats (Figure 5), the
distribution of their proximity to either wetland or
deepwater habitat systems (Figure 7) reflects much more
closely the distribution of their proximity to wetland
systems. However, in contrast, there are more facilities
closer to Riverine deepwater habitats than to Riverine
wetlands.
Approximately 76 percent of the sanitary landfills are
located in or within 1/4 mile of either wetlands or
deepwater habitats, while 93 and 98 percent are located in
or within 1/2 and 1 mile of either wetlands or deepwater
habitats, respectively (Figure 7). Most of the facilities
are near Palustrine habitats (i.e., Palustrine wetlands
since the Palustrine system only includes wetlands).
Approximately 69, 89, and 97 percent are located in or
within 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile, respectively, of Palustrine
habitats. Riverine habitats have the next highest number of
sanitary landfills located in or- close to them
(approximately 14, 28, and 44 percent in or within 1/4, 1/2,
and 1 mile, respectively). Fewer facilities are located in
or close to Lacustrine habitats (6, 11, and 22 percent are
located in or within 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile, respectively).
Not many facilities are located in or close to Estuarine
habitats and almost none are located in or close to Marine
habitats. Approximately 2 percent of the landfills are
located further than a mile from either a wetland or
deepwater habitat (Figure 8).
-------
DIFFERENCES AMONG STATES AND REGIONS
All Systems
Wetlands—
There are some differences among the 10 states and 3
regions in the relative proximity of sanitary landfills to
wetlands (Figures 9 through 12). The percent of the
facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of wetlands ranges
from 45 percent for Washington to 96 percent for Connecticut
(Figure 9) . More than 75 percent of the sanitary landfills
in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) are
located in or within 1/4 mile.
It is surprising that 83 percent of the sanitary
landfills in Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) are located in or
within 1/4 mile of wetlands as compared to 64 percent in
Texas Region 1 (Coastal) with its large expanse of coastal
wetlands (Figure 9) . It is also interesting that 51 percent
of the facilities are located in or within 1/4 mile of
wetlands in Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) which is in the more
inland and arid portion of Texas (Figure 2).
There is considerably less variation among the states
and regions in the percent of sanitary landfills that are
located in or within 1/2 mile of wetlands (Figure 10) . In
all states and regions, except Washington, more than 75
percent of the facilities are located in or within 1/2 mile
and in four states and one region (Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, New York, and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) more
than 95 percent of the facilities are located in or within
1/2 mile.
Very little variation exists among the states and
regions in the percent of sanitary landfills that are
located in or within 1 mile of wetlands (Figure 11). In all
states and regions more than 90 percent of the facilities
are located in or within 1 mile and in five states and two
regions (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia-, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Texas Region 1 (Coastal), and Texas Region 2
(Northeastern) all of the facilities are located in or
within 1 mile.
Most sanitary landfills in all states and regions are
located within 1/4 mile of a wetland and very few are
further than 1 mile from a wetland (Table 5 and Figure 12) .
The percent of the facilities further than 1 mile from a
wetland ranges from 0 percent for Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas Region 1
(Coastal), and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) to 8 percent
for Washington.
-------
Deepwater Habitats—
There are differences among the 10 states and 3 regions
in the relative proximity of sanitary landfills to deepwater
habitats (Figures 13 through 16) . The percent of the
facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of deepwater
habitats ranges from 0 percent for Georgia to 33 percent for
Delaware (Figure 13). In five states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York) more than 20
percent of the facilities are located in or within 1/4 mile
of deepwater habitats.
The percent of sanitary landfills located in or within
1/2 mile of deepwater habitats ranges from 4 percent for
Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 54 percent for Connecticut
(Figure 14) . States and regions with relatively the most
facilities located in or within 1/2 mile of deepwater
habitats are Connecticut (54 percent), Louisiana (47
percent), New York (45 percent), Delaware (33 percent),
Washington (32 percent), Pennsylvania (31 percent), and
Texas Region 1 (Coastal) (31 percent).
The percent of the sanitary landfills located in or
within 1 mile of deepwater habitats ranges from 4 percent
for Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 77 percent for Connecticut
(Figure 15) . States or regions with relatively the most
facilities located in or within 1 mile of deepwater habitats
are Connecticut (77 percent), Delaware (67 percent),
Louisiana (66 percent), New York (62 percent), and New
Jersey (59 percent).
In seven of the 10 states and 3 regions, more than half
of the sanitary landfills are located further than 1 mile
from a deepwater habitat (Table 5 and Figure 16). These are
Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) (96 percent), Georgia (67
percent), North Carolina (67 percent), Pennsylvania (57
percent), Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) (56 percent), Texas
Region 1 (Coastal) (54 percent), and Florida (51 percent).
Connecticut, with 23 percent, has relatively the fewest
facilities further than 1 mile from a deepwater habitat.
Wetlands or Deepwater habitats—
Relative distances of the sanitary landfills to either
wetlands or deepwater habitats are given in Figures 17
through 19. Since most facilities are must closer to
wetlands than to deepwater habitats, the distribution of
their relative proximity to either wetlands or deepwater
habitats reflects more closely the distribution of their
proximity to wetlands (Figures 9 through 11). The percent
of the facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of either
wetlands or deepwater habitats ranges from 49 percent for
Washington to 99 percent for Connecticut (Figure 17). More
than 75 percent of the sanitary landfills in Connecticut,
-------
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) are located in
or within 1/4 mile of either wetlands or deepwater habitats.
There is considerably less variation among the states
and regions in the percent of sanitary landfills that are
located in or within 1/2 mile of either wetlands or
deepwater habitats (Figure 18) than the percent that are
located in or within 1/4 mile. In all states and regions,
at least 80 percent of the facilities are in or within 1/2
mile of either wetlands or deepwater habitats, and in four
states and one region (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New
York, and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern)) more than 95
percent of the facilities are in or within 1/2 mile.
Few differences exist among the states and regions in
the percent of sanitary landfills that are located in or
within 1 mile of either wetlands or deepwater habitats
(Figure 19) . In all states and regions, more than 90
percent of the facilities are in or within 1 mile of either
wetlands or deepwater habitats, and in five states and two
regions (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Texas Region 1 (Coastal), and Texas Region 2
(Northeastern)) all of the facilities are in or within 1
mile.
In all states and regions, most sanitary landfills are
located within 1/4 mile of either a wetland or deepwater
habitat -and relatively very few are located further than 1
mile (Table 5 and Figure 20). The percent of the facilities
located further than 1 mile from either a wetland or
deepwater habitat ranges from 0 percent for Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas Region
1 (Coastal), and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) to 7 percent
for Washington.
Palustrine System
There are differences among the 10 states and 3 regions
in the relative proximity of sanitary landfills to
Palustrine habitats (i.e., to Palustrine wetlands, since the
Palustrine system includes only wetlands) (Figures 21
through 24) . The percent of the facilities located in or
within 1/4 mile of Palustrine habitats ranges from 33
percent for Delaware to 95 percent for Connecticut (Figure
21) . More than 75 percent of the facilities in Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, and Texas Region
2 (Northeastern) are located in or within 1/4 mile of a
Palustrine habitat.
10
-------
Considerably less variation exists among the states and
regions in the percent of sanitary landfills that are
located in or within 1/2 mile of Palustrine habitats (Figure
22) . In all states and regions, except Washington, more
than 75 percent of the facilities are located in or within
1/2 mile of Palustrine habitats and in three states and one
region (Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Texas Region 2
(Northeastern) more than 95 percent of the facilities are
located in or within 1/2 mile.
Very few differences exist among the states and regions
in the percent of sanitary landfills that are located in or
within 1 mile of Palustrine habitats (Figure 23). In all
states and regions, more than 90 percent of the facilities
are located in or within 1 mile of Palustrine habitats and
in five states and two regions (Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas Region 1
(Coastal), and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern)), all of the
facilities are located in or within 1 mile.
Most sanitary landfills in all states and regions are
located within 1/4 mile of a Palustrine habitat and very few
are further than 1 mile from a Palustrine habitat (Figure
24) . The percent of the facilities further than 1 mile from
a Palustrine habitat ranges from 0 percent for Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas Region
1 (Coastal), and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern) to 9 percent
for Washington.
Riverine System
Wetlands—
Some differences exist in the relative proximity of
sanitary landfills to Riverine wetlands among the 10 states
and 3 regions (Figures 25 through 27) . The percent of the
facilities in or within 1/4 mile of Riverine wetlands ranges
from 0 percent for Connecticut, Delaware, and Louisiana to
17 percent for Georgia and North Carolina (Figure 25). In
Connecticut and Delaware none of the facilities are in or
within 1/2 mile of Riverine wetlands and the percent ranges
up to 25 percent for Georgia (Figure 26). The range for the
facilities in or within 1 mile of Riverine wetlands is from
0 percent for Delaware to 42 percent for Georgia (Figure
27).
Deepwater Habitats—
Relative distances of the sanitary landfills to
Riverine deepwater habitats in the 10 states and 3 regions
are given in Figures 28 through 30. More of the facilities
are located close to Riverine deepwater habitats than to
Riverine wetlands (Figures 25 through 27). The percent of
the facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of Riverine
11
-------
deepwater habitats ranges from 0 percent for Georgia to 33
percent for Delaware (Figure 28). Texas Region 3
(Panhandle) has 1 percent of its facilities located in or
within 1/2 mile of Riverine deepwater habitats and the
percent ranges up to 39 percent for Connecticut (Figure 29).
The range for the facilities located in or within 1 mile of
deepwater habitats is from 1 percent for Texas Region 3
(Panhandle) to 67 percent for Delaware (Figure 30). In
three states (Connecticut, Delaware, and Louisiana) more
than half of the facilities are located in or within 1 mile
of Riverine deepwater habitats.
Wetland or Deepwater Habitats—
Since more of the sanitary landfills are located closer
to Riverine deepwater habitats than Riverine wetlands, the
distribution of their relative proximity to either Riverine
wetlands or deepwater habitats (Figures 31 through 33)
follows more closely the distribution of their proximity to
Riverine deepwater habitats (Figures 28 through 30) . The
percent of the facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats ranges from 6
percent for Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 33 percent for
Delaware and North Carolina (Figure 31). Texas Region 3
(Panhandle) has 11 percent of its facilities located in or
within 1/2 mile of either Riverine wetlands or deepwater
habitats and the percent ranges up to 42 percent for
Pennsylvania (Figure 32). The range for the facilities
located in or within 1 mile of either Riverine wetlands or
deepwater habitats is from 21 percent for Texas Region 3
(Panhandle) to 67 percent for Delaware (Figure 33). In
seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington) at least half
of the facilities are located in or within 1 mile of either
Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats.
Lacustrine System
Wetlands—
In all states and regions relatively very few sanitary
landfills are located close to Lacustrine wetlands (Figures
34 through 36) . Florida and Texas Region 3 (Panhandle),
each with 3 percent, have relatively the most facilities
located in or within 1/4 mile of Lacustrine wetlands (Figure
34) . Florida, with 6 percent, has the greatest percent of
facilities located in or within 1/2 mile of Lacustrine
wetlands (Figure 35). Likewise, Florida, with 10 percent,
has relatively the most facilities located in or within 1
mile of Lacustrine wetlands (Figure 36).
12
-------
Deepwater Habitats—
More of the sanitary landfills in the various states
and regions are located closer to Lacustrine deepwater
habitats (Figures 37 through 39) than to Lacustrine wetlands
(Figures 34 through 36). Texas Region 2 (Northeastern),
with 10 percent, has relatively the most facilities located
in or within 1/4 mile of Lacustrine deepwater habitats
(Figure 37) . The percent of the facilities located in or
within 1/2 mile of Lacustrine deepwater habitats ranges from
0 percent for Delaware and North Carolina to 17 percent for
Connecticut (Figure 38). The range of the facilities
located in or within I mile of Lacustrine deepwater habitats
is from 0 percent for Delaware and North Carolina to 30
percent for Connecticut and Texas Region 2 (Northeastern)
(Figure 39).
Wetlands or Deepwater Habitats—
Since more of the sanitary landfills are located closer
to Lacustrine deepwater habitats than to Lacustrine
wetlands, the distribution of their relative proximity to
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater habitats (Figures 40
through 42) follows more closely the distribution of their
proximity to Lacustrine deepwater habitats (Figures 37
through 39) . The percent of the facilities located in or
within 1/4 mile of either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater
habitats ranges from 0 percent for Delaware, Georgia, and
North Carolina to 10 percent for Florida and Texas Region 2
(Northeastern) (Figure 40). Delaware and North Carolina do
not have any facilities located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater habitats and the
percent ranges up to 18 percent for Connecticut (Figure 41).
The range of the facilities located in or within 1 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater habitats is from 0
percent for Delaware and North Carolina to 31 percent for
Connecticut (Figure 42).
Estuarine System
Wetlands—
In all states and regions few sanitary landfills are
located close to Estuarine wetlands (Figures 43 through 45).
Three states and two regions (Georgia, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern), and Texas
Region 3 (Panhandle) do not have any facilities located in
or within 1/4 mile of Estuarine wetlands (Figure 43).
Delaware, with 33 percent, has relatively the most
facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of Estuarine
wetlands. The range of the facilities located in or within
1/2 mile of Estuarine wetlands is similar with Georgia,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern),
and Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) having 0 percent and Delaware
having 33 percent (Figure 44). Again, the percent of the
13
-------
facilities located in or within 1 mile of Estuarine wetlands
is somewhat similar and ranges from 0 percent for North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern), and
Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 33 percent for Delaware
(Figure 45).
Oeepwater Habitats—
Not many sanitary landfills are close to Estuarine
deepwater habitats in any of the states and regions (Figures
46 through 48). Five states and two regions (Delaware,
Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2
(Northeastern), Texas Region 3 (Panhandle), and Washington)
do not have any facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats (Figure 46). Louisiana, with
11 percent, has relatively the most facilities located in or
within 1/4 mile of Estuarine deepwater habitats. The only
other state or region with an appreciable proportion is New
Jersey with 10 percent. The range of the percent of the
facilities located in or within 1/2 mile of Estuarine
wetlands is similar with Georgia, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern), and Texas
Region 3 (Panhandle) having 0 percent and Delaware having 33
percent (Figure 47) . Again, the percent of the facilities
located in or within 1 mile of Estuarine deepwater habitats
is somewhat similar and ranges from 0 percent for Georgia,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern),
and Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 33 percent for Delaware
(Figure 48).
Wetland or Deepwater Habitats—
Few sanitary landfills are close to either Estuarine
wetlands or deepwater habitats in any of the states and
regions (Figures 49 through 51). Delaware and Louisiana,
with 33 and 17 percent, respectively, have relatively the
most facilities located in or within 1/4 mile of Estuarine
wetlands or deepwater habitats (Figure 49). Georgia, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern), and
Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) do not have any facilities
located in or within 1/4 mile of either Estuarine wetlands
or deepwater habitats. The range of the facilities located
in or within 1/2 mile of either Estuarine wetlands or
deepwater habitats is similar with Georgia, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2 (Northeastern), and Texas
Region 3 (Panhandle) having 0 percent and Delaware having 33
percent (Figure 50) . Again, the percent of the facilities
located in or within 1 mile of either Estuarine wetlands or
deepwater habitats is somewhat similar and ranges from 0
percent for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas Region 2
(Northeastern), and Texas Region 3 (Panhandle) to 33 percent
for Delaware (Figure 51).
14
-------
Marine System
Very few sanitary landfills in any of the states and
regions are located close to Marine habitats (Figures 52
through 60) . None are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats (Figures 52,
55, and 58). New York and Washington, each with 2 percent,
are the only states or regions with any facilities located
in or within 1/2 mile of either Marine wetlands or deepwater
habitats, (Figures 53, 56, and 59). In three states
(Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York) 2 percent of the
sanitary landfills are located in or within 1 mile of Marine
wetlands while Washington has 4 percent (Figure 54). Only
two states, i.e., New York with 2 percent and Washington
with 4 percent, have facilities located in or within 1 mile
of Marine deepwater habitats (Figure 57). In all states and
regions, the percent of the facilities located in or within
1 mile of either Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats
(Figure 60) is identical to the percent in or within 1 mile
of Marine wetlands (Figure 54).
DISCUSSION
Almost all of the sanitary landfills included in this
study are located either in or close to wetlands.
Approximately three-fourths (72 percent) of the facilities
are located in or within 1/4 mile of wetlands while almost
all are in or within 1/2 or 1 mile of wetlands (91 and 98
percent, respectively). Very few (2 percent) are further
than a mile from a wetland. Considerably fewer facilities
are located either in or close to deepwater habitats. A
little more than half of the facilities are further than a
mile from a deepwater habitat. Since most of the sanitary
landfills are much closer to wetlands than deepwater
habitats, the distribution of their relative proximity to
either wetlands or deepwater habitats is similar to their
distribution to wetlands.
The vast majority of. the sanitary landfills that are
located either in or close to wetlands are close to
Palustrine wetlands while most of the facilities that are
close to deepwater habitats are close to either Riverine or
Lacustrine deepwater habitats.
There are some differences among the 10 states and 3
regions in the relative proximity of the sanitary landfills
to wetlands and deepwater habitats. However, in all states
and regions, the vast majority of the facilities are close
to wetlands, and, in all states and regions except one
(i.e., Washington), most facilities are in or within 1/4
mile of wetlands.
15
-------
A comparison of the proximity of sanitary landfills to
wetlands among the three regions of Texas surveyed is
especially interesting. It surprised us to find that 83
percent of the sanitary landfills in Texas Region 2
(Northeastern) are located in or within 1/4 mile of wetlands
as compared to 64 percent in Texas Region 1 (Coastal) with
its large expanse of coastal wetlands (Figure 9) . We also
found it intriguing that 51 percent of the facilities are
located in or within 1/4 mile of wetlands in Texas Region 3
(Panhandle) which is in the more inland and arid portion of
Texas (Figure 2) . Undoubtedly, there are other
considerations, besides the commonness of wetlands in an
area, that determine the proximity of sanitary landfills to
wetlands.
All states and regions have considerably fewer sanitary
landfills located either in or close to deepwater habitats
than wetlands. In seven out of the 10 states and 3 regions
more than half of the facilities are located further than a
mile from a deepwater habitat. Since most of the sanitary
landfills in all states and regions are much closer to
wetlands than deepwater habitats, the distribution of their
relative proximity to either wetlands or deepwater habitats
is similar to their distribution to wetlands.
In all states and regions, most of the sanitary
landfills that are located either in or close to wetlands
are located close to Palustrine wetlands. Much fewer
facilities are located close to Riverine wetlands and even
fewer are located close to Lacustrine, Estuarine, and Marine
wetlands. In the majority of the states and regions, most
facilities that are located either in or close to deepwater
habitats are located close to Riverine habitats. Fewer
facilities are located close to Estuarine and Lacustrine
deepwater habitats and almost none are located close to
Marine deepwater habitats.
The data available to us specifies only the point
location of the sanitary landfills and, therefore, does not
define either their size or boundaries7 However, we know
from other studies that many sanitary landfills are
typically on the order of 100 acres in size. For example,
in the state of Florida, approximately 35 percent of the
active sanitary landfills are between 50 and 150 acres in
size, with an average size of 110 acres (Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation, 1987). A landfill that is 100
acres in size and uniformly distributed around a point will
have a radius of approximately 1/4 mile and, therefore, will
approximate the boundary of the first concentric 1/4-mile
radius region (Figure 1). Undoubtedly, most of the
landfills located in a 1/4-mile radius region containing
either wetlands or deepwater habitats are located in,
16
-------
adjacent, adjoining, contiguous, abutting, or in very close
proximity to wetlands or deepwater habitats. Since
landfills vary considerably in size and shape, some of the
landfills located in the 1/2-mile radius and 1-mile radius
regions containing wetlands or deepwater habitats will
probably also be located in wetlands or deepwater habitats.
The exact geographic boundary of the landfill is not
the critical consideration for determining adverse impacts
associated with these facilities. A major consideration is
whether or not the facility site is hydrologically
interconnected, either by surface or subsurface flows, with
wetlands, 'deepwater habitats, and/or habitats with water
tables close to the surface. If hydrologically
interconnected, contaminants can easily migrate off-site to
the other environments. Also, the construction and
operation of a landfill in or close to sensitive habitats
can cause physical alterations to the landscape that may
adversely affect these habitats. Beyond the adverse
physical alterations to the habitat from the landfill,
ingress or egress (i.e., access roads and transportation of
waste) to a landfill can cause additional physical
alterations to the surrounding landscape.
It is the possible hydrological interconnections of
deepwater habitats, wetlands, and adjacent or close by areas
with high-water tables that need to be considered in
assessing the potential environmental hazards of waste sites
located in such environments (Lambou et al., In press; van
Beek et al., In press). It was this recognition of the
possible hydrological interconnections of these
environments, as well as other considerations, including the
need to be able to identify environments with high-water
tables, that lead to the development of a "Wet Subsurface
Environments: Definition and Identification Guide1* (Lambou
et al., In press; Parker et al., In press; van Beek et al.,
In press; Moerlins et al., In press). "Wet subsurface
environments" were defined as "areas where the soils or
substrate are saturated near the surface for some part of
the year" and the phrase "where soils or substrate are
saturated near the surface" was stated to mean "a vertical
depth of 2 meters or less to saturated soils or substrate
from the land or substrate surface."
Wet subsurface environments as defined above include
deepwater habitats, wetlands, as well as adjacent or close
by areas with a high-water table (Lambou et al.. In press;
Parker et al., In press; van Beek et al., In press; Moerlins
et al., In press). It is in these environments that most of
the sanitary landfills in the 11 states included in this
study are located. Wet subsurface environments are part of
a continuum in the landscape. They are numerous in the
17
-------
Nation's coastal corridors where much of the present
populations is and where much of the predicted future
population growth will occur (Lambou et al., In press).
Associated with these concentrations of population is the
problem of disposing of the large amounts of solid and
hazardous waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Areas with high-water tables, i.e., wet subsurface
environments, are common in areas having a positive moisture
index, i.e., areas where precipitation is greater than
potential evapotranspiration, as well as in areas of low
relief where water-table gradients are small (Lambou et al.,
In press; van Beek et al., In press). Many of these areas
are groundwater discharge zones or have underlying zones of
low permeability that help maintain the water table close to
the surface. Discharge areas commonly constitute 5 to 30
percent of the surface area of a watershed (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979).
In areas having a positive moisture index, large
quantities of leachate that are high in both organic and
inorganic contaminants can be produced by percolation
through the waste-disposal site, especially where waste
piles are not effectively capped (Griffen et al., 1976;
Bartel, 1986). Surface-water sources (Freeze and Cherry,
1979), as well as saturated conditions above the base of a
landfill (Bartel, 1986), can lead to the production of
significant quantities of leachate from landfills;
contaminants may then become subject to transport as part of
the ground-water flow system. In the presence of a high-
water table, the influx of water through the more porous
landfill materials will also provide a driving force for
ground-water transport of contaminants beyond the landfill
area. In wet subsurface environments this transport is most
likely to be dominated by both lateral and upward components
and the transport beyond the confines of the waste-disposal
area is facilitated by saturated conditions.
Bartel and Barksdale (1985) found in a survey of
landfills in northwest Florida that "40 percent of the
landfills had waste buried in the range from less than 5
feet above the water table to below the water table.
Twenty-five percent of the landfills had waste submerged
below the water table. Based on a nation-wide survey,
Moerlins et al. (1989c) estimated that 22 out of 71 (31
percent) Subtitle D municipal-waste-combustion-ash disposal
facilities had the waste pile extending below the water
table.
18
-------
The transport of contaminants beyond the waste-disposal
site can occur through a number of mechanisms (van Seek et
al., In press). These include focussed recharge at the
waste-disposal site causing water-table mounding which will
provide the driving force for movement of contaminants.
Also, the presence of a permeable soil layer will provide
for surface spreading similar to that utilized in pit
recharge. Regardless of the source of water, the presence
of leachates in combination with saturated conditions near
the surface in an area surrounding a waste-disposal facility
is a major cause of concern. This is due to the fact that
the hydraulic conductivity of the substrate (i.e., its
ability to transmit water) is generally greatest when
saturated.
In areas of low relief, high rainfall, and low water-
table gradients, certain factors (e.g., small-scale
topographical features, waste-disposal management, soil-
profile characteristics, and hydrologic events, such as
river-stage fluctuations) are likely to play a major role in
determining subsurface flow direction and magnitude (Lambou
et al., In press; van Beek et al., In press). The local
subsurface hydrology is often complex and difficult to
predict.
If waste-disposal sites are not effectively capped,
they may act as recharge areas after rainfalls. This can
produce moderate mounding of water tables which can affect
local flow gradients and lead to radial flow away from
landfills (Russell et al., 1987). If the landfills are
effectively capped, runoff to peripheral ditches or ponds
can create separate ground-water mounds, which may lead to
complex local-flow systems. Improved drainage ditches can
be effective sinks for ground-water discharge and may often
constitute a ground-water, flow-system boundary; however,
when surface runoff is high, streams and drainage ditches
may act as points of recharge to the ground-water system,
leading to some seasonal cycling of water (Russell et al.,
1987). Improved drainage ditches can be effective sinks for
ground-water flows and can facilitate the movement of
contaminants to surface waters.
Focussed recharge may result in water-table highs under
topographic lows (Winter, 1984), and substrate permeability
contrasts can become the dominant factor in the development
of flow systems. It is the local and intermediate systems
that are of major concern in wet subsurface environments as
the flow patterns in such systems are often complex, making
the movement of contaminants difficult to predict. Russell
et al. (1987) points out that it is difficult to predict the
direction of the movement of contaminants from landfills
using regional gradients alone in these low-gradient
19
-------
environments. Prediction may also be made more difficult by
the discharge of mineralized water from deepwater aquifers,
naturally or through irrigation, which can mask geochemical
surveys intended to detect landfill leachates. Contaminant
transport in shallow ground-water may easily escape
detection, as monitoring often appears to be focused largely
on underlying aquifers at somewhat greater depths.
Because of the possible lateral or upward movement of
contaminants at, near, or over the surface in wet subsurface
environments, contaminants that escape from disposal areas
are more likely to come in contact with surface waters and
soils, as well as plants and animals, than in other types of
environments. Near surface soils and surface waters are
areas of significant biological activity. The lower limit
of soils is generally considered to be approximately 2
meters and below this limit the hard rock or earthy
materials are virtually devoid of roots, animals, or marks
of other biologic activity (USDA SCS, 1975). It is in the
soil area of the landscape that many of the biological,
chemical, and physical reactions and transformations of
contaminants are most likely to occur that are of interest
in protecting and monitoring environmental quality.
We believe that, for the most part, the wetlands and
deepwater habitats identified in this study as being close
to sanitary landfills are not small, isolated, or
unimportant habitats. Small wetlands or deepwater habitats
typically do not appear on NWI maps, because of the
limitations associated with the remote sensing techniques
and interpretation procedures used by the NWI. Habitats
less than 5 acres in size are typically not included in NWI
map products due to these limitations. However, some
habitats between 1 and 5 acres in size may occasionally
appear on NWI maps. The minimum size of a habitat that will
appear on NWI maps depends upon the habitat type (i.e., some
types are easier to photo interpret than others), isolation
from similar types, areal extent and shape, as well as other
attributes.
If the results presented here for 11 states relative to
the proximity of sanitary landfills to wetlands and
deepwater habitats are somewhat typical of the rest of the
country, then, there is a propensity for sanitary landfills
to be located either in or close to wetlands. This is
supported by the fact that more than half of the sanitary
landfills are located in or within 1/4 mile of wetlands in
Texas Region 3 (Panhandle), which is in the more inland and
arid portion of Texas. This study did not acquire data that
would elucidate why facilities are located close to
wetlands. However, we speculate that wetlands or areas
20
-------
close to wetlands are not deliberately sought out as sites
for sanitary landfills; but, are often used for this purpose
because they have low market values, are undeveloped, and
are relatively close to sources of solid waste.
Most of the sanitary landfills included in this study
are located in or close to wet subsurface environments.
There are special problems associated with the siting,
design, operation, and monitoring of waste-disposal sites in
these environments. These problems stem from conditions
that are common and somewhat unique to wet subsurface
environments. Conditions of concern that often occur in
these environments include: (l) high-water tables; (2)
hydrological interconnections of deepwater habitats,
wetlands, and adjacent areas with a high-water table; (3)
ground-water discharges; (4) production of large quantities
of leachates as a result of water percolating through waste-
disposal piles; (5) lateral and upward components of ground-
water flows; (6) disposal-site waste piles extending below
the water table; (7) complex local hydrology; (8) high
hydraulic conductivity of the substrate because of saturated
conditions; and (9) increased likelihood of contaminants
coming in contact with surface waters, soils, plants, and
animals.
We conclude that sanitary landfills have the potential
to adversely affect sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands
and deepwater habitats, either through habitat alterations
or through the migration of contaminants. Landfills located
in or close to these environments need to be properly
designed and monitored.
21
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bartel, R. L. 1986. Hydrogeology and contaminant movement
at selected solid waste landfills in northwest Florida.
Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water
Resources Special Report 86-2. 119 pp.
Bartel, R. L. and J. D. Barksdale. 1985. Hydrogeologic
assessment of solid waste landfills in northwest
Florida. Northwest Florida Water Management District,
Water Resources Special Report 85-1. 104 pp.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe.
1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency list of municipal
waste landfills. Computer Data File, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1987. CMS
25 data file. Computer Data File, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation.
Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. 604 pp.
Gebhard, R. L., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and V. W.
Lambou. 1988a. Proximity of Delaware sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279e. 16 pp.
Gebhard, R. L., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and V. W.
Lambou. 1988b. Proximity of- Delaware sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279e. 11 pp.
Griffen, R. A., K. Cartwright, N. F. Shimp, et al. 1976.
Alteration of pollutants in municipal landfill leachate
by clay materials: part I. column leaching and field
verification. Illinois State Geol. Surv. Bull. 78.
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988a. Proximity of Pennsylvania sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279d. 16 pp.
22
-------
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988b. Proximity of Pennsylvania sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279d. 29 pp.
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988c. Proximity of Florida sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/118a. v + 16 pp.
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988d. Proximity of Florida sanitary
landfills to wetlands and.deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/118b. iv + 28 pp.
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988e. Proximity of New Jersey sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279b. 16 pp.
Herndon, R. C., J. E. Moerlins, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988f. Proximity of New Jersey sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279b. 20 pp.
Lambou, V. W. 1989. Proximity of North Carolina sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats.
Memorandum Report, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 29 pp.
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988a. Proximity of Louisiana sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/145a. v + 16 pp.
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988b. Proximity of Louisiana sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/145b. iv + 17 pp.
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988c. Proximity of Connecticut sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279C. 16 pp.
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988d. Proximity of Connecticut sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279C. 22 pp.
23
-------
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1989a. Proximity of Texas sanitary landfills
to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide results.
EPA 600/X-89/040. 24 pp.
Lambou, V. W., R. C. Herndon, J. E. Moerlins, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1989b. Proximity of Texas sanitary landfills
to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on individual
landfills. EPA 600/X-89/040. 145 pp.
Lambou, V. W., J. E. Moerlins, W. B. Parker, J. L. van Beek,
J. M. Kuperberg, and R. C. Herndon. In press. Wet
subsurface environments: definition and identification
guide, part I - definition and rationale. EPA-ORD
Project Report. (This is an update and revision of
EPA/600/X-88/403a.)
Langbein, W. B. and K. T. Iseri. 1960. General
introduction and hydrologic definitions manual of
hydrology. Part I. General surface-water technigues.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Water-supply Paper 1541-A. 29 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. .C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988a. Proximity of Georgia sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279a. 16 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988b. Proximity of Georgia sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279a. 14 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988c. Proximity of New York sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-88/279f. 16 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1988d. Proximity of New York sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-88/279f. 26 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1989a. Proximity of Washington sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, statewide
results. EPA 600/X-89//086A. 16 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., R. C. Herndon, V. W. Lambou, and R. L.
Gebhard. 1989b. Proximity of Washington sanitary
landfills to wetlands and deepwater habitats, data on
individual landfills. EPA 600/X-89//086B. 27 pp.
24
-------
Moerlins, J. E., J. M. Kuperberg, R. C. Herndon, D. W. Teaf,
and V. W. Lambou. 1989c. Municipal -waste-combust ion-
ash disposal, characterization of disposal practices
and facilities and review of monitoring data. EPA
600/X-89/258a. 44 pp.
Moerlins, J. E., V. W. Lambou, W. B. Parker, J. L. van Beek,
J. M. Kuperberg, and R. C. Herndon. In press. Wet
subsurface environments: definition and identification
guide, part IV - data synthesis and identification
procedures. EPA-ORD Project Report. (This is an
update and revision of EPA/600/x-88/403d.)
National Cartographic Information Center. 1987. T-70
computer tape. Computer Data File, National Mapping
Division, U.S. Geological Survey.
Parker, W. B., J. E. Moerlins, W. W. Lambou, J. L. van Beek,
J. M. Kuperberg, and R. C. Herndon. In press. Wet
subsurface environments: definition and identification
guide, part II - soils. EPA-ORD Project Report. (This
is an update and revision of EPA/600/x-88/403b.)
Russell, G. M., M. Stewart, and A. L. Higer. 1987.
Examples of landfill-generated plumes in low-relief
areas, southeast Florida. Water Resources Bull.
23(5):863-866.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1975. Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil
classification for making and interpreting soil
surveys. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Agric. Handb. 436. 754 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D report to
Congress. Final Draft Report, May 28, 1987.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1979. Maps for America, first
edition. U.S. Geological Survey. "
van Beek, J. L., V. W. Lambou, J. E. Moerlins, W. B. Parker,
R. C. Herndon, and J. M. Kuperberg. In Press. Wet
subsurface environments: definition and identification
guide, part III - hydrology. EPA-ORD Project Report.
(This is an update and revision of EPA/600/x-88/403c.)
Winter, T. C. 1984. Modeling the interrelationship of
groundwater and surface water. In J. L. Schnoor (ed.)
Modeling of total acid precipitation impacts, Acid
Precipitation Series Vol. 9, Butterworth Publishers.
P. 89-119.
25
-------
Point Representing
Location of the
Landfill
Hypothetical
Landfill
Boundaries
Lacustrine Deepwater Habitat
(lake)
Palustrine Wetland
(marsh)
Figure 1. Hypothetical sanitary landfill showing the point (latitude and longitude coordinates) that
represents the location of the landfill, the concentric regions used to determine the nearness
or proximity of the sanitary landfill to wetlands and deepwater habitats, and the boundary of a
100-acre sanitary landfill distributed approximately evenly around its point location (a 100-acre
sanitary landfill uniformly distributed around a point will have a radius of approximately 1/4 mile).
26
-------
10
I
Regions
Coastal, Southeastern
1= 119 landfills
NWI maps available
Northeastern
2=264 landfills
NWI maps available
Panhandle, Westcentral
3=80 landfills
NWI maps available
Central, Westcoastal
4=463 landfills
No NWI maps available
Figure 2. Four regions of Texas delineated for this report.
-------
All Systems
Marine
Estuarine
Riverine
Lacustrine
Palustrine
In or within 1 mile
In or within 1/2 mile
In or within 1/4 mile
40 60
Percent
100
Figure 3. Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to wetlands.
1 mile
1/2 - 1 mile
1/4 - 1/2 mile
1/4 mile
20
40 60
Percent
100
Rgure 4. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to closest wetland.
28
-------
All Systems
Marine
Esiuarine
Riverine
Lacustrine
In or within 1 mile
In or within 1/2 mile
In or within 1/4 mile
40 60
Percent
80 100
Figure 5. Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to deepwater habitats.
> 1 mile
1/2-1 mile
1/4 - 1/2 mile
1/4 mile
Rgure 6. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to closest deepwater habitat.
29
-------
Riverine
Lacustrine
Palustrine
In or within 1 mile
In or within 1/2 mile
In or within 1/4 mile
97
69
20
40 60
Percent
80 100
Figure 7. Proximity of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to either wetlands or
deepwater habitats.
> 1 mile
1/2-1 mile
1/4 - 1/2 mile
1/4 mile
76
20
40 60
Percent
80 100
Rgure 8. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to either the closest wetland or
deepwater habitat.
30
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
I72
382
,464
20
40 _ 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 9. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
wetlands by state or region.
State (Total #\
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
-------
State (Total
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83) 6iniii»iiiimiiiiimimaBBB^ 10°
Delaware (3) Ig^aBmmwiMmmwmmawwwiuwaaamaamr-^-^ 10°
Florida (122) T^^mammMmmmmmmmmmmaau^^^^^^^^**
Georgia (24) fimmmmmumwmMmmmmmmwuwauuaiimsn^^ma^S 10°
• • • ,..-» TX" ^ QA
Louisiana (47) J^/iihfihiiih^iia^i^MJa^yiim^mBBmih^iMmii^^idiiiiii^iiiihiini^^ a*
New Jersey (68) faa^^^P™——--- •irimi^^ 10°
New York (110) famaBam •••• •••"• • ——•—naamX 9 9
North Carolina (6) Bmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ->»>anmmmmmi& 10°
Pennsylvania (131) J^iHii^iiiMmmmmmmiimmmiBBaaa^maagmm^^^^r 9*
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119) j^-—---- mamma^^ 100
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264) %mmmmm\mmmmmmmmmmMmsmmiaiimii^fa^^^amaa^ 10°
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80) &^8^maa^a^^B8HBiiiiiniiiimi^iiiiiiiin^^^^^m^ 95
Washington (96) ^m^mam\m^\mM\Mmmmmmm^mmmmmww!^ 92
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 11. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
wetlands by state or region.
p
Texas
Texas 2
Texas
State (Total *fl
0
• < 1/4 mile • 1/4 - 1/2 mile
01/2-1 mile • > 1 mile
jgggnuHJL* / |&*
^^^^y* ^1
m^m^f f
S jr ^r(-*
^umm^mmm/\ \ \ f*
(f f ' S f
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 12. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to the closest wetland by state or region.
32
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
32
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 13. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
47
754
45
32
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 14. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region.
33
-------
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (SO)
Washington (96)
48
777
67
49
1 33
766
59
762
33
746
744
54
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Figure 15. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153) [
Connecticut (S3)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122) '_
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
• < 1/4 mile B 1/4 - 1/2 mile
01/2-1 mile H > 1 mile
' ^ f f „„ jf
/ ~s / / t B t'ji
S S S jamiJ
S S S S ma^f
f ^ f ,,rmf
r s s ^L——^— ^
r S S S ^_________^B^
' ^ xx *
f S S ^»
' X" X J^__""_ -mf
S S S /'^^ jP
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 16. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to the closest deepwater habitat by state
or region.
34
-------
Stale (Total *\
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 17. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
Sta^e (Total #) —
All States (1 1 53) f&
Connecticut (83) f&
Delaware (3)_RP
Florida (122) f^
Georgia (24) f^
Louisiana (47) PJS
New Jersey (68) PjS
New York (110) RP
North Carolina (6) KP
Pennsylvania (131)PP
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119).R
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264) KP
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80) _BP
Washington (Q6\ P*
0
i^r 03
J/^ «\*»
. | . | . , . | . |
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 18. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 of
either wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
35
-------
State (Total *\
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110) Q
North Carolina (6) J^iiiimwrniiiiiBiiBiiiiii^^
Pennsylvania (131) j^HB^B^B^BBa™^^^ i B^
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119) |^Bmm™iiJiff""""'f'"'T"invMiMi!fflO!i{iii!!!!ii!!^^^^mm^ 1UU
M/ ^100
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 19. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
either wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States M 1 53\ l^m
Connecticut ffl*3^ I^H
HAlawarA C%\ ••
Florida M??) l^B
f^Aomia I9A\ I^H
Louisiana ^7\ *KM
NAW JAFQAV ^fifl\ I^H
New York M 1 0) mm
Worth Carolina (R\ !••
TnYi<: 1 frtnnnt.il^ M1<)^ mm
Tflva« ? (N Fa 1 mile
mm^ll { |ffl»
' jf
mmmmmfmtf ^
fffff^f^n f
mm*mA\mf &f
^ f f
- wmmmf\ f
s M| , ^ 1 1 1 ^*
s , piid^inn nJ||*
|^ ra| niiifnri-nlfiiirf'
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 20. Distance of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to the closest wetland or deepwater
habitat by state or region.
36
-------
Stata (Total »)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40
Percent
60
80
100
Rgure 21. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Palustrine wetlands by state or region.
State rTotal
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
^100
^100
^98
^100
^100
^100
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 23. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Palustrine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153) ]^
Connecticut (83) Itm
Delaware (3) pm
Florida (122) pm
Georgia (24) IH
Louisiana (47) !•
New Jersey (68) IM
New York (110) !•
North Carolina (6) !••
Pennsylvania (131) pm
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119) Itai
Texas 2 (N Eastern) (264) IH
Toxm 3 (Panhandlo) (80) |H
Washington (96) fm
0
• < 1/4 mile • 1/4 - 1/2 mile
01/2-1 mile H > 1 mile
' '__„££
' ^ B^^— H^
^^•^ idirf*
„ /L .^jjV
x •/'i 1 1 idiiiii^1
'mmmm^\\ \ f '
^^^•H/tf*
^^^ |*
X ^f 1111^11114*
s mm*^\ \ \ f
mm£m^^f
s ^^ ^f • • •-
20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 24. Distance of 1153 sanitary landfills in 11 states to the closest Palustrine wetland by state
or region.
38
-------
State (Total
-------
State (Total »)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 27.. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Riverine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total ft)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
23
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 28. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region.
40
-------
State (Total ft
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
30
22
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 29. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total <0
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
100
Figure 30. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Riverine deepwater habitats by state or region.
41
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
14
80
100
Figure 31. .Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 32. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
42
-------
State (Total ft
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 33. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
either Riverine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 34. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Lacustrine wetlands by state or region.
43
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (S3)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 35. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Lacustrine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 36. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Lacustrine wetlands by state or region.
44
-------
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 37. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Lacustrine deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #}
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
14
10
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 38. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Lacustrine deepwater habitats by state or region.
45
-------
State (Total
-------
State (Total »\
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
11
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 41. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
30
24
20 40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 42. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
either Lacustrine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
47
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 43. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total #}
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 44. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region.
48
-------
Stata (Total #}
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 45, Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Estuarine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total #) _
All States (1153) .
Connecticut (83) .
Delaware (3) .
Florida (122) .
Georgia (24) .
Louisiana (47) .
New Jersey (68)
New York (110) .
North Carolina (6) .
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119) .
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264) .
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
J?2
^
0
o
^_^^__^^p 1 1
/ M .
r_ f 1 0
37
w
o
o ~
02
V
o
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 46. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region.
49
-------
State (Total #}
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 47. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 48. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Estuarine deepwater habitats by state or region.
50
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 49. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total *1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 50. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
51
-------
Stats (Total #1
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 51. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
either Estuarine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• | • | • 1 • 1 ' I-
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 52. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Marine wetlands by state or region.
52
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
•
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
0
0
0
0
0
0
'•
\J .
0
o
Q
0
w2
• 1 . 1 p 1 . 1 > 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 53. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Marine wetlands by state or region.
State (Total
-------
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80) '
Washington (96)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 " 1 • 1 ' 1 • 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 55. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
Marine deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
•
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
0
V
1 • 1 • 1 • I • I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Rgure 56. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
Marine deepwater habitats by state or region.
54
-------
State (Total #1 '
All States (1153) ]r 1
Connecticut (83) 1
1 0
Delaware (3)
Florida (122) °
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Rgure 57. Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
Marine deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #)
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• 1 " 1 • 1 ' 1 ' 1 .
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Figure 58. Percent of 1.153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/4 mile of
either Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
55
-------
State (Total #\
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 59, Percent of 1,153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1/2 mile of
either Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
State (Total #}
All States (1153)
Connecticut (83)
Delaware (3)
Florida (122)
Georgia (24)
Louisiana (47)
New Jersey (68)
New York (110)
North Carolina (6)
Pennsylvania (131)
Texas 1 (Coastal) (119)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern) (264)
Texas 3 (Panhandle) (80)
Washington (96)
20
40 60
Percent
80
100
Figure 60. Percent of 1.153 sanitary landfills in 11 states that are located in or within 1 mile of
either Marine wetlands or deepwater habitats by state or region.
56
-------
TABLE 1. DEFINITION OF WETLANDS USED BY THE U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE FROM COWARDIN ET AL. (1979)
Definition:
Wetlands are lands transitional between
terrestrial and aquatic systems where the
water table is usually at or near the surface
or the land is covered by shallow water. For
purposes of this classification wetlands must
have one or more of the following three
attributes: (1) at least periodically, the
land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2)
the substrate is predominantly undrained
hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil
and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the growing
season of each year.
Explanation:
The term wetland includes a variety of areas
that fall into one of five categories: (1)
areas with hydrophytes and hydric soils, such
as those commonly known as marshes, swamps,
and bogs; (2) areas without hydrophytes but
with hydric soils-for example, flats where
drastic fluctuation in water level, wave
action, turbidity, or high concentration of
salts may prevent the growth of hydrophytes;
(3) areas with hydrophytes but nonhydric
soils, such as margins of impoundments or
excavations where hydrophytes have become
established but hydric soils have not yet
developed; (4) areas without soils but with
hydrophytes such as the seaweed-covered
portion of rocky shores; and (5) wetlands
without soil and without hydrophytes, such as
gravel beaches or rocky shores without
vegetation.
57
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Limits:
The upland limit of wetland is designated as
(1) the boundary between land with
predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with
predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover;
(2) the boundary between soil that is
predominantly hydric and soil that is
predominantly nonhydric; or (3) in the case
of wetlands without vegetation or soil, the
boundary between land that is flooded or
saturated at some time each year and land
that is not. The boundary between wetland
and deepwater habitat in the Marine and
Estuarine systems coincides with the
elevation of the extreme low water of spring
tide; permanently flooded areas are
considered deepwater habitats in these
systems. The boundary between wetland and
deepwater habitat in the Riverine,
Lacustrine, and Palustrine systems lies at a
depth of 2 m (6.6 feet) below low water;
however, if emergents, shrubs, or trees grow
beyond this depth at any time, their
deepwater edge is the boundary.
58
-------
TABLE 2. DEFINITION OF DEEPWATER HABITATS USED BY THE U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FROM COWARDIN ET AL. (1979)
Definition:
Deepwater Habitats are permanently flooded
lands lying below the deepwater boundary of
wetlands. Deepwater habitats include
environments where surface water is permanent
and often deep, so that water, rather than
air, is the principal medium within which the
dominant organisms live, whether or not they
are attached to the substrate. As in
wetlands, the dominant plants are
hydrophytes; however, the substrates are
considered nonsoil because the water is too
deep to support emergent vegetation.
Explanation:
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats are defined
separately because traditionally the term
wetland has not included deep permanent
water; however, both must be considered in an
ecological approach to classification.
Limits:
The boundary between wetland and deepwater
habitat in the Marine and Estuarine systems
coincides with the elevation of the extreme
low water of spring tide; permanently flooded
areas are considered deepwater habitats in
these systems. The boundary between wetland
and deepwater habitat in the Riverine,
Lacustrine, and Palustrine systems lies at a
depth of 2 m (6.6 feet) below low water;
however, if emergents, shrubs, or trees grow
beyond this depth at any time, their
deepwater edge is the boundary.
59
-------
TABLE 3. DEFINITIONS OF THE FIVE MAJOR SYSTEMS (MARINE,
ESTUARINE, RIVERINE, LACUSTRINE, AND PALUSTRINE**) USED BY
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN CLASSIFYING WETLANDS
AND DEEPWATER HABITATS FROM COWARDIN ET AL. (1979)
Marine:
Definition:
Limits:
The Marine System consists of the open ocean
overlying the continental shelf and its
associated high-energy coastline. Marine
habitats are exposed to the waves and
currents of the open ocean and the water
regimes are determined primarily by the ebb
and flow of oceanic tides. Salinities exceed
30 °/g0 with little or no dilution except
outside the mouths of estuaries. Shallow
coastal indentations or bays without
appreciable freshwater inflow, and coasts
with exposed rocky islands that provide the
mainland with little or no shelter from wind
and waves, are also considered part of the
Marine System because they support typical
marine biota.
The Marine System extends from the outer edge
of the continental shelf shoreward to one of
three lines: (1) the landward limit of tidal
inundation (extreme high water of spring
tides), including the splash zone from
breaking waves; (2) the seaward limit of
wetland emergents, trees, or shrubs; or (3)
the seaward limit of the Estuarine System,
where this limit is determined by factors
other than vegetation.
The term system refers to a complex of wetlands and
deepwater habitats that shares the influence of similar
hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, or biological
factors.
**
The first four systems, i.e., Marine, Estuarine,
Riverine, and Lacustrine, include both wetland and
deepwater habitats whereas the Palustrine System
includes only wetland habitats.
60
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Estuarine:
Definition:
The Estuarine System consists of deepwater
tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands
that are usually semienclosed by land but
have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic
access to the open ocean, and in which ocean
water is at least occasionally diluted by
freshwater runoff from the land. The
salinity may be periodically increased above
that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along
some low-energy coastlines there is
appreciable dilution of sea water. Offshore
areas with typical estuarine plants and
animals, such as red mangroves (Rhizophora
mangle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea
virginica) , are also included in the
Estuarine System.
Limits:
The Estuarine System extends (1) upstream and
landward to where ocean-derived salts measure
less than 0.5 °/oo during the period of
average annual low flow; (2) to an imaginary
line closing the mouth of a river, bay, or
sound; and (3) to the seaward limit of
wetland emergents, shrubs, or trees where
they are not included in (2) . The Estuarine
System also includes off-shore areas of
continuously diluted sea water.
61
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Riverine:
Definition:
Limits:
The Riverine System includes all wetlands and
deepwater habitats contained within a
channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent
emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and
(2) habitats with water containing ocean-
derived salts in excess of 0.5 °/oo- A
channel is "an open conduit either naturally
or artificially created which periodically or
continuously contains moving water, or which
forms a connecting link between two bodies of
standing water" (Langbein and Iseri, 1960).
The Riverine System is bounded on the
landward side by upland, by the channel bank
(including natural and man-made levees), or
by wetland dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or
lichens. In braided streams, the system is
bounded by the banks forming the outer limits
of the depression within which the braiding
occurs. The Riverine System terminates at
the downstream end where the concentration of
ocean-derived salts in the water exceeds 0.5
°/00 during the period of annual average low
flow, or where the channel enters a lake. It
terminates at the upstream end where
tributary streams originate, or where the
channel leaves a lake. Springs discharging
into a channel are considered part of the
Riverine System.
62
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Lacustrine:
Definition:
Limits:
The Lacustrine System includes wetlands and
deepwater habitats with all of the following
characteristics: (1) situated in a
topographic depression or a dammed river
channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses or
lichens with greater than 30% areal coverage;
and (3) total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres) .
Similar wetland and deepwater habitats
totaling less than 8 ha are also included in
the Lacustrine System if an active wave-
formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up
all or part of the boundary, or if the water
depth in the deepest part of the basin
exceeds 2 m (6.6 feet) at low water.
Lacustrine waters may be tidal or nontidal,
but ocean-derived salinity is always less
than 0.5 °/00.
The Lacustrine System is bounded by upland or
by wetland dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or
lichens. Lacustrine systems formed by
damming a river channel are bounded by a
contour approximating the normal spillway
elevation or normal pool elevation, except
where Palustrine wetlands extend lakeward of
the boundary. Where a river enters a lake,
the extension of the Lacustrine shoreline
forms the Riverine-Lacustrine boundary.
63
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Palustrine:
Definition:
The Palustrine System includes all nontidal
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses or
lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in
tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-
derived salts is below 0.5 °/oo. It also
includes wetlands lacking such vegetation,
but with all of the following four
characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20
acres); (2) active wave-formed or bedrock
shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth
in the deepest part of basin less than 2 m at
low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-
derived salts less than 0.5 /oo-
Limits:
The Palustrine System is bounded by uplands
or by any of the other four systems.
64
-------
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF SANITARY LANDFILLS BY STATE,
NUMBER WITH NWI MAPS AVAILABLE, AND NUMBER CLASSIFIED AS TO
THEIR PROXIMITY TO WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITATS
State
Number of
sanitary
landfills
in state
Landfills classified
Number
Percent
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Texas
Texas 1
Texas 2
Texas 3
Texas 4
Washington
91
3
126
198
93
73
304
124
135
926
(Coastal) 119
(Northeastern) 264
(Panhandle) 80
(Central) 463
118
83
3
122
24
47
68
110
6
131
463
119
264
80
0
91
100
97
12
51
93
36
5
97
50
100
100
100
0
96
81
All states
2,191
1,153
53
All states except
North Carolina and
Region 4 (Central)
of Texas
1,604
1,147
72
See Figure 2 for location of the regions in Texas.
65
-------
TABLE 5. DISTANCE OF 1,153 SANITARY LANDILLS IN 11 STATES TO THE
CLOSEST WETLAND OR DEEPWATER HABITAT BY STATE OR REGION
o\
Wetland
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Texas 1 (Coastal)
Texas 2 (N. Eastern)
Texas 3 (Panhandle)
Washington
<1/4 mila
No. %
80 (96)
2 (67)
100 (82)
20 (83)
37 (79)
52(77)
87 (79)
5 (83)
72 (55)
76 (64)
220 (83)
41 (51)
43 (45)
1/4-1/2 mila
No. %
2
1
12
4
4
11
20
0
32
33
37
24
28
(2)
(33)
00)
(17)
0)
(16)
(18)
(0)
(24)
(28)
(14)
(30)
(29)
1/2-1 mila
No. %
1
0
7
0
3
5
2
1
19
10
7
11
17
(D
(0)
(6)
(0)
(6)
(7)
(2)
(17)
(15)
(8)
(3)
(14)
(18)
> 1 mila
No. %
0
0
3
0
3
0
1
0
8
0
0
4
8
(0)
(0)
(3)
(0)
(6)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(6)
(0)
(0)
(5)
(8)
<1/4 mila
No. %
25
1
18
0
15
14
23
1
23
18
36
2
14
(30)
(33)
(15)
(0)
(32)
(21)
(21)
(17)
(18)
(15)
(14)
(3)
(15)
Deepwater habitat
1/4-1/2 mile
No. %
20
0
19
4
7
4
26
0
17
19
25
1
17
(24)
(0)
(16)
(17)
(15)
(6)
(24)
(0)
(13)
(16)
(10)
(D
(18)
1/2-1 mila
No. %
19
1
23
4
9
22
19
1
17
18
55
0
21
(23)
(33)
(19)
(17)
(19)
(32)
(17)
(17)
(13)
(15)
(21)
(0)
(22)
> Imila
No. %
19
1
62
16
16
28
42
4
74
64
148
77
44
(23)
(33)
(51)
(67)
(34)
(41)
(38)
(67)
(57)
(54)
(56)
(96)
(46)
Either wetland or deepwater habitat
1 mila
No. % No. % No. % No. %
82
2
103
20
38
53
90
5
85
80
225
41
47
(99)
(67)
(84)
(83)
(81)
(78)
(82)
(83)
(65)
(67)
(85)
(51)
(49)
1
1
10
4
4
11
17
0
29
32
33
25
30
d)
(33)
(8)
(17)
•(9)
(16)
(16)
(0)
(22)
(27)
(13)
(31)
(31)
0
0
6
0
3
4
2
1
15
7
6
10
12
(0)
(0)
(5)
(0)
(6)
(6)
(2)
(17)
(12)
(6)
(2)
(13)
(13)
0
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
4
7
(0)
(0)
(3)
(0)
(4)
(0)
(D
(0)
(2)
(0)
(0)
(5)
(7)
All States
835(72)208 (18) 83 (7) 27 (2)190 (17)159 (14)209 (18)595 (52)871 (76)197 (17) 66 (6) 19 (2)
------- |